Hi ClericCleric K wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 6:45 pmMike, maybe it will help if you explain what exactly non-dual implies for you. In the way you use it, I get the feeling that it is really only a label for experiences which in previous discussions we called 'stepping out of the movie' (when we commented Gurdjieff's self-remembrance). This should be cleared out because for many people the non dual state represents a state where there's no longer distinction between self and world. But the question that I ask every time (and never really get adequate answer) is, if there's really no longer distinction between self and world, why do we still experience the world from a very specific perspective? For example, if I step out of the movie and call that being one with the world, how do I explain the fact that I still see the movie from the eyes of my Earthly human body? Why not see the movie from the eyes for all beings simultaneously? If I'm still seeing the world from particular set of eyes, then what is my relation to all other eyes?mikekatz wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:50 pm Hi Cleric
If "...the Earthly state is indeed an octave within a higher world...", then there are multiple states and multiple worlds. And a separate experiencer of these. If you wish to call the whole shebang One World, that's okay by me, but once again it's dualism.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that if you have non-dual experiences you are referring to above, that this is the end of the road as far as development is concerned. It may be, it may not be. But first, you have to actually get there, and have the experiences, and then see what else, if anything, happens. Furthermore, such experiences always bring positive changes when you are back in dualism. Your whole attitude to life, love, suffering, and others, changes. You see more, because you become more. And if this is what you and Ashvin are referring to in terms of coming to more understanding in our lives, then once again we are talking about the same thing in different language.
These are random question, I'm not asking to answer them all. I just wanted to show that there's much ambiguity in the usage of non-dual in our age. For many, simply feeling blissful and carefree is equivalent to non-dual. So it would be useful to tell what exactly non-dual means to you.
Thanks for your continuing efforts, and Ashvin's.
I have no inkling whatsoever how it is to permanently step out of the movie, or even whether it's possible. I have read how some sages have decided to return or not remain in that state in order to help us. But I have no knowledge of this.Ashvin wrote:But the question that I ask every time (and never really get adequate answer) is, if there's really no longer distinction between self and world, why do we still experience the world from a very specific perspective? For example, if I step out of the movie and call that being one with the world, how do I explain the fact that I still see the movie from the eyes of my Earthly human body? Why not see the movie from the eyes for all beings simultaneously? If I'm still seeing the world from particular set of eyes, then what is my relation to all other eyes?
What I do experience, as many others do, is that one can step out of the movie. I don't want to waste your time, but I'm trying to answer your question you say you never get an answer to.
The first way for me, is Gurdjieff's Self-Remembering. In this state, the movie continues to play, but you are aware of the fact that it's a movie. You are aware of being aware. You are still in a dual state, but you're aware of that fact. You experience duality. This is opposed to what we normally call our waking state, where we do not experience duality. In the normal state, we experience the world without experiencing ourselves. We just experience what happens in front of us, without us being there. Gurdjieff calls it waking-sleep, because we forget to include ourselves.
Clearly in this first state there's no possibility of experiencing the world through others' eyes.
The second way. Once one experiences duality via self-remembering / mindfulness or whatever name you give it, you can then, by shifting attention back, by asking who is experiencing, etc., (these are just metaphors), and by grace, find that sometimes the duality just drops away and what's there is an indescribable and wholly-positive everythingness. In that state, there's no longer an experience through even Mike's eyes, never mind anyone else's.
And because there's no Mike, "you" "realise" that this is the background to everything and everyone in the normal dual state of existence. And for want of a better way to say it, I use the word non-dual.
So I'm actually mystified why you think it should be possible to see the movie from any or all others' eyes. If there's duality, there is one's own eyes, and if there is no duality, there are no eyes. Your very framing of this question and anticipation of any kind of answer is itself steeped in duality.
Cleric and Ashvin, please forgive me for not pursuing your other answers in the rest of this conversation. We are clearly seeing things through very different eyes , and I don't wish to waste either of your time.